Elections – Candidate Affidavits – Appellant, a non-governmental organization, sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgments requiring candidates to provide full and complete affidavits at the time of filing nomination papers – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing complete information to effectuate the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) – Held that affidavits with blank particulars render the affidavit nugatory, and Returning Officers must reject such nominations [Paras 7-22].

Returning Officers – Duties and Powers – Returning Officers directed to ensure affidavits are complete, and candidates must mark columns as 'NIL' or 'Not Applicable' if necessary – Rejection of nomination papers permissible for incomplete affidavits despite procedural leniency highlighted in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) case – Non-compliance results in prosecution under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act [Paras 14-26].

Right to Information – Fundamental Right – Reinforced voters' right to know about candidates' criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications as integral to Article 19(1)(a) – Ensuring transparency in elections paramount for democracy [Paras 17-19].

Decision:

Writ Petition disposed of with directions – Returning Officers to ensure complete affidavits – Nomination papers with blank particulars to be rejected – Prosecution under Section 125A for false information to be distinguished from incomplete affidavits.

Debt Recovery – Delayed Adjudication – Appellant bank challenged the inordinate delay by the DRT and DRAT in adjudicating the application – Supreme Court criticized the tribunals for delaying proceedings for over four years, emphasizing the need for promptitude in resolving disputes to prevent economic detriment and uphold public interest [Paras 12-21].

Jurisdiction of DRAT – Granting Liberty to Sue Bank – DRAT granted liberty to the auction purchaser to initiate action against the bank for alleged omissions – Supreme Court held that DRAT exceeded its jurisdiction by granting such liberty, as its role is limited to adjudicating disputes within the special legislation and not to confer rights to initiate separate legal actions [Paras 23-30].

Purpose of SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Court reiterated the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act to ensure speedy recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions – Highlighted the tribunals’ duty to expedite proceedings and avoid procedural delays that could harm the financial system [Paras 13-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Observation granting liberty to initiate action against the bank set aside – High Court’s decision declining to interfere with the DRAT’s order also set aside – No order as to costs.

Medical Negligence – Criminal Liability – Appellant, a cardiologist, was charged under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence during medical treatment – High Court upheld trial court's finding of prima facie evidence of negligence – Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for gross negligence to be proven for criminal liability under Section 304A IPC [Paras 1-17].

Negligence in Medical Practice – Standards of Proof – Supreme Court reiterated that for criminal negligence, a high degree of negligence amounting to gross negligence must be established – Reference to Jacob Mathew case outlining standards and protection for medical professionals from frivolous and unjust prosecutions [Paras 10-16].

Procedural Guidelines for Prosecuting Doctors – Emphasis on the need for prima facie evidence from a competent medical professional before initiating criminal proceedings against doctors – Importance of obtaining independent medical opinions to support allegations of negligence [Paras 11-12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and proceedings against the appellant set aside – Emphasis on protecting medical professionals from unwarranted criminal prosecution while ensuring accountability through established legal standards [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempted Murder – Conviction – Appellants Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh convicted for the murder of Jagmohan Singh and attempted murder of Amarjot Singh – Trial court’s judgment upheld by High Court – Supreme Court examined the reliability of witness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 1-42].

Witness Testimony – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Didar Singh and Malkiat Singh not examined by prosecution – Court held non-examination did not materially affect the trustworthiness of other witnesses – Emphasized quality of evidence over quantity [Paras 17-25].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Participation and Presence – Appellant Paramjit Singh found to have shared common intention with Manjit Singh – Court held common intention can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of parties – Distinguished from mere association with co-accused [Paras 34-40].

Procedural Aspects – Sections 313 and 319 CrPC – Examination and Summoning of Additional Accused – Jaswinder Kaur summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC – Court highlighted importance of detailed examination and summoning process [Paras 5-6].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences of Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh upheld – Acquittal of Sukhpal Singh, Kamal Kumar, and Jaswinder Kaur affirmed – Court found no interference warranted in the acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts [Paras 41-42].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Appellant contended that the land in dispute was part of the sugar factory and vested in the State under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 – Respondent argued that the land was agricultural and should not vest in the State – High Court held the land was agricultural and ordered its return to the Respondent – Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding the land was not used for cultivation and thus vested in the State [Paras 1-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Definition of Scheduled Undertaking – Court examined the definition under Section 2(h) of the Act, highlighting that lands held for purposes other than cultivation or grovelands are considered part of the scheduled undertaking and vest in the Corporation – Emphasized the need to establish a nexus between the asset and the factory [Paras 12-16].

Judicial Review – Reappraisal of Evidence – High Court erred in reappraising evidence and substituting its findings over the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities – Supreme Court reinstated the findings of the authorities that the land was not agricultural [Paras 17-18].

Exemption under Ceiling Act – Land Exempted as Industrial – Land in question had been exempted from the Ceiling Act on the basis it was held for industrial purposes – Court found this further supported the conclusion that the land was part of the sugar factory and not agricultural [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Land held to vest in the Appellant-Corporation – Writ Petition No. 187 of 2007 dismissed [Para 21].

Constitutional Law – Validity of State Legislation – Appellant challenged the constitutionality of Sections 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 – Argued that the State lacked legislative competence as the subject "banking" falls under Entry 45, List I of the Seventh Schedule – Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, citing similar legislation in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Pondicherry, which had been upheld in prior judgments [Paras 1-14].

Competence of State Legislature – Overlapping Entries – Court held that the Andhra Act in pith and substance falls under Entries 1, 30, and 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule – Emphasized that overlapping between Entries does not invalidate the State legislation as long as it is within its competence and does not conflict with Central legislation [Paras 10-12].

Definition of Financial Establishment – Applicability to Cooperative Banks – Court rejected the contention that Vasavi Cooperative Bank does not fall under the definition of "financial establishment" under Section 2(c) of the Andhra Act – Clarified that the exclusion applies to entities owned and controlled by the State or Central Government, which did not cover the Cooperative Bank in question [Para 13].

Decision:

Writ Petitions dismissed – Sections 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, held constitutional – Criminal proceedings and attachment of properties against Petitioners under the Act upheld [Para 14].

Medical Education – Renewal of Permission – MCI rejected the renewal of permission for the third batch of MBBS students at Chintpurni Medical College citing deficiencies – College argued that deficiencies were rectified and that surprise inspection was not justified – Supreme Court upheld MCI's decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining minimum standards [Paras 10-20].

Surprise Inspection – Justification and Findings – Court supported the surprise inspection conducted by MCI, highlighting its necessity to verify compliance and rectify deficiencies – Found the deficiencies noted in the surprise inspection to be fundamental and crucial [Paras 18-20].

Principles of Natural Justice – Administrative Function – MCI's decision to deny renewal based on inspection reports not vitiated by the lack of a further hearing – Emphasized the role of MCI as an administrative authority ensuring compliance with minimum standards [Paras 19-21].

Decision:

Writ Petition (C) No. 590 of 2013 allowed – MCI's decision to deny the renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14 upheld – I.A. No. 2 of 2013 in SLP (C) No. 28480 of 2012 disposed of accordingly [Para 21].

Tender Evaluation – Essential and Non-Essential Terms – Appellant's tender disqualified for not submitting the latest Income Tax Return – High Court upheld disqualification – Supreme Court held non-submission of Income Tax Return as non-essential, directing KMDA to reconsider the bid [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Review – Scope and Grounds – Court reiterated principles from Tata Cellular v. Union of India – Focus on legality, procedural propriety, and rationality of administrative actions – Judicial review limited to ensuring fair and lawful decision-making process [Paras 8-9].

Legal Precedents – Stare Decisis – Court emphasized adherence to established precedents – Criticized excessive reliance on multiple case citations, stressing importance of following binding precedents and maintaining judicial economy [Paras 6-7].

Administrative Discretion – Correction of Errors – Recognized scope for correcting non-essential errors in tenders – Encouraged fair consideration of bids, avoiding undue technical disqualifications where substantive compliance exists [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – KMDA directed to proceed further with the appellant's bid, ignoring the non-submission of the latest Income Tax Return as it was deemed a non-essential term [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Witness Testimony – Appellants convicted for murder based on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Adikesavan (PW-1) – Eyewitness was a close relative of the deceased – Court held the testimony reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, rejecting the argument that being related rendered him unreliable [Paras 9-15].

Delay in FIR – Explained – Incident occurred at 3:00 p.m. on January 5, 1999 – FIR lodged at 10:00 p.m. same day – Delay explained as due to the witness informing another family member and travelling to the police station – Court found the explanation satisfactory and the delay not detrimental to the prosecution case [Paras 7-8].

Nature of Offense – Section 302 IPC vs. Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellants argued for reduction of offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Court rejected the argument, noting the brutal nature of the assault and the clear intention to kill, evident from the injuries and actions of the accused [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld – Court found no reason to alter the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC [Para 19].